Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Robert Wenzel (if that is even his name), the pro-IP plagiarist liar

rated by 0 users
This post has 23 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
John James Posted: Mon, Apr 15 2013 3:04 PM

The rabbit hole goes deeper...  a lateral continuation of the Kinsella v. Wenzel thread that I thought it was worth a new one since it's kind of a new topic, and the other thread is already on page 3...

This is just beautiful...

I may have found the Drudge formula and Raymond Nize

 

I love how he also points out that "his whole [Mises Institute] talk is long block quotes from cited sources"...hmmm.  Sounds a lot like a certain debate he was involved in recently.  LOL  Seriously, you just have to read this.

 

And it's already getting picked up (notice Kinsella is linking a different blogger)...

Okay ... this is spooky-weird. Someone just sent me this. Holy crap. I thought Wenzel (the guy I "debated" with recently) was an odd character but this is positively .... well, read for yourself. Jesus. The world is filled with ... "interesting" characters...

 

  • | Post Points: 80
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 421
Points 7,165

That's awesomely hilarious! I wonder what Stephan truly thinks about this, and I wonder how Robert/Raymond will react to this.

The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Mon, Apr 15 2013 3:57 PM

But why?

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

And whattya know...

http://www.google.com/search?q=nize+site:economicpolicyjournal.com

 

You honestly think no one has submitted a single comment? 

 

I always did find it weird that there never seemed to be any images of him anywhere.  Even when he was listed as a named member of the Revolution PAC advisory board, he was the only one without a photo. (Those blank spaces are just where the Wayback Machine did not capture the images...but they were there.)

I guess we now know why the guy never wanted to show his face anywhere. 

To be honest I actually did think about this when I noticed someone mention he gave a speech at the LvMI.  It was the first thing I thought of actually: "he showed his face...he's out there now."  It blew me away to see a video recording of the speech right up there on the Institute's YouTube channel.  (Notice how on every single written source that talks about him, all the blogs, any article...the photo provided is a screenshot from that lecture.)

Judging by the most popular comment on that YouTube video, I'm not the only one who noticed this odd lack of visibility.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 9
Points 135
Nick replied on Mon, Apr 15 2013 4:40 PM

Full damage control mode for Wenzel/Nize now. I'm guessing:

  1. Fewer comments overall as a result of people abandoning his site.
  2. Comments from people pointing to anti-IP hypocrisy, plagiarism, and Wenzel-Nize connection.

Pseudonyms and setting up a range of related websites in the hopes one gets popular isn't that uncommon. I've read SEO articles that promote doing just that (usually to fool Google, but that's off topic).

But when you finally make it and get your invitation to deliver a speech at the Mises Institute,

  1. Fess up and use your real name. Libertarians, of all people, would understand the use of a pseudonym for online purposes.
  2. Don't plagiarize the hell out of your prepared speech, especially when you take a pro-IP position.

So what does he do now? Any guesses?

  • Confess and carry on EPJ?
  • Come out on the Kinsella side of IP, since he's spends all day copy/pasting articles and copy/pasted his LVMI speech?
  • Quietly start up EconomicsNewsReportFormula.com, run by Roger Steve Kinzel?

This is beyond entertaining, but I actually feel a little bad for the guy. I did go to his site all the time and found it useful as a news aggregator/Krugman basher.

And to think, he could have prevented all of this by avoiding the IP topic altogether, or at least not acting like a complete jerk to Kinsella for 2.5 hours.

"I'd like to introduce Mises hopping [sic] into the debate." -Bob Wenzel
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Nick:

So what does he do now? Any guesses?

  • Confess and carry on EPJ?
  • Come out on the Kinsella side of IP, since he's spends all day copy/pasting articles and copy/pasted his LVMI speech?
  • Quietly start up EconomicsNewsReportFormula.com, run by Roger Steve Kinzel?

No, none of the above.  He's too well-known now to try to slip into a new identity.  The libertarian community is where virtually all of his bread is buttered.  He has nothing else.  It's not like he could just pivot to some other field of focus, or some other audience, or even some other line of work, really.  All he knows is how to quote Austrian economists.  So there's really no way for him to try and start fresh with something else.  Plus EPJ is too popular to walk away from (especially at this point), even with everything seeming to be crumbling.

I seriously doubt he'll confess, but he'll no doubt just keep pumping out posts on EPJ.  That's what he always does.  It sure seems like it's all he does.  It's all he knows.

There's no way to try to spin this; no matter how you go about it, it looks bad...so he'll just do the obvious and ignore it.

But yes, I foresee his traffic diminishing, and EPJ perhaps surviving for quite some time, but as a shell of its former self.  I have little doubt he won't see the kind of income he's seen in the past, and certainly not the growth.  He may find some way to sensationalize something every now and then and get some attention, but he's far too limited in range and skill to really branch out in any other way...which is why even after so many years, and building up essentially a bare-bones default Blogspot template to one of the most traffic-ed libertarian websites, his greatest accomplishment is giving a speech at the LvMI.  (And another to two guys in the Liberty Room of the Federal Reserve building over lunch, of course.)

 

This is beyond entertaining, but I actually feel a little bad for the guy. I did go to his site all the time and found it useful as a news aggregator/Krugman basher.

Diddo, but honestly to the degree I feel bad, it's only out of a general human sensibility, deep deep down.  Overall I feel that he's getting only a small portion of what he deserves (although I admittedly do not know the full extent of everything going on with his life).  He brought all this on himself.  It's his castle of shit that he built, and now that the wind started blowing a little, it's (predictably) turning into a shitstorm.  That's what happens.  And what's more, he's the one who voluntarily started heating the air, with all his childish attacks and tirades, and never being able to leave anything alone and move on.

He basically asked for this.

I suppose that's what happens when someone with a self-esteem/ego problem, who has to make up identities to throw against the wall to see what sticks, and make up lies to try and gain traction, finally starts getting some of the attention they crave...it gets to their head, and they get sloppy and careless.  And start digging their own grave.

 

And to think, he could have prevented all of this by avoiding the IP topic altogether, or at least not acting like a complete jerk to Kinsella for 2.5 hours.

Bingo.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Mon, Apr 15 2013 5:46 PM

Raymond Nize has also posted here:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/08/paying_for_park.html

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Mon, Apr 15 2013 5:54 PM

You know, all we need is someone who owns a blog where the Raymonds posted to check their IPs...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Mon, Apr 15 2013 6:26 PM

Raymond Sabat is already confirmed:

 

Will real estate prices crash the way internet stocks did? Recently two economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York completed a study contending that despite the dramatic rise in housing prices there is no housing bubble. Raymond Sabat of EconomicBriefing.com has examined the report written by these two economists and discovered a glaring error which caused them to reach faulty conclusions.

Sabat explains that the record climb in housing prices is, indeed, a bubble and that the Federal Reserve study fails to consider past declining interest rates as a cause of the bubble. The faulty conclusions reached by Federal Reserve economists Jonathan McCarthy and Richard W. Peach may make many potential new home buyers comfortable about a purchase, when, in fact, we are very near the top of a housing market that will experience substantial declines in prices.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/07/prweb139947.htm

 

Bob Murphy mentions the following in an older post of his:

http://murphymagic.blogspot.com/2008/10/robert-wenzel-man-myth-legend.html

Last July Wenzel explained that it was ridiculous to expect the Fed to police financial markets going forward, because the smarty-pants Fed economists didn't even recognize the housing bubble as such before it popped. To prove this, Wenzel points to a 2004 paper [pdf] by Jonathan McCarthy and Richard W. Peach, titled "Is There A Bubble in The Housing Market Now?"

...

One last thing: If you follow the links above, you'll see that it's not "Robert Wenzel" but rather "Raymond Sabat" who penned the prescient critique. Wenzel explains that this is because of his sensitive work commitments at the time.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Wenzel explains that this is because of his sensitive work commitments at the time.

Ah yes, of course.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 203
Points 3,195

Holy smokes. What at first seemed like a shameful waste of 2.5 hours has turned into the gift that keeps on giving. It's too bad no one in real life gives a flip about my libertarian drama, but the intrigue and mystery is almost too much to keep bottled up. I gotta tell someone about how Wenzel isn't who he claims to be!!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 203
Points 3,195

But seriously, this is incredible. I can't think of deserts more just than this, and so speedy! I guess I'm so used to statist courts that I forget how quickly and mercilessly the market can mete out justice.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Mon, Apr 15 2013 7:31 PM

This is nice. Finally somebody joins me in critiquing his Soviet Union lecture. So he actually repeated whole sections of Wikipedia? Some scholar!

And he had posted he was going to produce an "expanded hard copy version", too funny! And what would that be, one of them Wikipedia books?

As I said when it came out, nothing about it struck me as establishing Wenzel as any kind of an expert on the topic (or even just well-read on it), but was in fact glaringly superficial, as well as inaccurate in places.

The name of the talk is 'An Examination of Key Factors in the Collapse the USSR' but what he actually gives is a gallop through the entire Soviet period. He explains this on the basis that the tale of the USSR is one of a 70-year long collapse. Since he devotes his hour to the entire Soviet history this means, he may not to go into depth on any aspect of it due to time constraints, but it may also mask the objective inability to speak on anything in depth due to a lack of knowledge as such.

Things must be pretty bad at MI if Bob Wenzel if their knowledge on the Soviet Union may be expanded by Bob Wenzel. The lecture is pretty wow. For the image MI is trying to project it's very naive and inaccurate. Nothing about it makes me think Wenzel's knowledge on the topic is anything other than superficial. Chunks of the talk are actually negative value.

Link.

Also just in the part of the speech the blog post John James linked highlights is, of course, an inaccuracy.

The kulaks were divided into three groups. . . [These were the groups]: those to be killed immediately, those to be sent to prison and those to be deported to Siberia or Russian Asia. The third category alone consisted of about 150,000 households, one million people. Stalin believed that such a brutal policy would persuade others in agricultural regions to accept the rule of Moscow and that resistance would end. Stalin wrote to [his aides] “We must break the back of the peasantry.”

Wenzel (repeating what he had learned on Wikipedia):
Category 1: to be executed
Category 2: to be incarcarated
Category 3: to be deported to Soviet hinterlands

Which is wrong. Actually:
Category 1: to be executed or incarcarated, quota set at 60,000 individuals
Category 2: to be deported to Soviet hinterlands, quota set at 150,000 households - in fact the plan was overfullfiled
Category 3: to be forcefully expropriated and resettled within their home district
Source: The Unknown Gulag by Lynne Viola.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Oh snap! Wenzel admits to being Raymond Sabat: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/07/government-isnt-god-fdic-sticks-banks.html

 

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Lol. I went down the rabbit hole before I saw WheyWhey's follow up post.

EDIT: Btw, on FB, Kinsella linked to your post. Congrats! Wenzel links to Smiling Dave while Kinsella links to you lol

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

DanielMuff:
EDIT: Btw, on FB, Kinsella linked to your post. Congrats! Wenzel links to Smiling Dave while Kinsella links to you lol

Don't know about you guys, but I think that means I win.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Mon, Apr 15 2013 9:29 PM

In truth SD wasn't just linked, he was cited and commented on.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,943
Points 49,130
SystemAdministrator
Conza88 replied on Mon, Apr 15 2013 9:52 PM

Re: "The smoking gun however, is a lawsuit filed (SS) on January 14, 2008 where Ray was named as a defendant in a case filed in California: La Jolla Cove Investors, Inc vs Stomar Partners, Inc, Jim Miller, Raymond Nize and Does 1-10 (case no: 37-2007-000642640CU-BC-CTL)."

Looking at Stomar Partners; we find the following:

Stomar Partners LLC
9 North Wabash
Suite 602
Chicago, IL 60602
USA
Phone: 312 238-9172
Fax: 312 275-8749
Email: rw@stomarpartners.com
Company Contact: Raymond Walkosz
[Add that to the Alias List]

RipOff Report: This is the plaintiff's outlining of his involvement with Jim Miller, and his partner Raymond Nize (Ray Nize) and adds a whole other layer of wth; but makes sense in the bigger picture. Some excerpts:

"...As far as my suit being "malicious",please review case number: LAM08M02083. You will see the judge dismissed it WITHOUT PREJUDICE because of the false document you sent to the court (meaning the Judge thought I served you in Chicago in error). Your document clearly LIES to the judge stating that you "do not have a place of business in California" and you stating RIGHT HERE ON RIP OFF REPORT THAT I WAS "BANNED FROM THE OFFICE" IN LOS ANGELES". Are you seriously forgetting your lies? You filed a "truthful" document with the Los Angeles court house on April 21st,2008 that you "don't have an office in Los Angeles" then on August 18th, 2008 you post on a public website (www.ripoffreport.com) that you DO have an office in Los Angeles that you "banned" me from. Do you not understand that you are creating a paper trail of lies? How you have not done prison time up until now is beyond me. [...]

Unbelievable Jim. How can you file a police report for something you THINK is missing from an office Ray and I paid the lease on? You are the detective Jim, maybe the problem isn't the "computer" that you are looking for but maybe - RAY NIZE? This was your business partner you entrusted your company to and this man has disappeared off the face of the earth with your company's information and you are worried about me? I am still here and the law enforcement authorities have my address since I carry a firearm. You make it seem like I am on the run. I just don't have time for your frivolous lawsuits you are now inventing to say I am harrassing you. It's not harrassment if you owe me money and are stealing from the shareholders.

And I say "stealing" because they are all wondering where you are with their money (go to www.investorshub.com and enter "IVAY" as the stock symbol to see my "back up".). I am reachable (feel free to send me a check any day you wish for my commissions owed), Ray is not. You boast an alliance with Homeland Security resources and you can't find your business partner? C'mon Jim, take some responsibility. Your business partner has disappeared. Your "computer" has disappeared and how many times have you called me complaining that you know he took your precious computer? You conveniently slant everything to appear the victim always. Maybe you should do a background check on people you appoint as business partners in the future. I mean what do I know? You are the one with the degree in background in "law enforcement" yet you cant find Ray Nize. Step it up Jim on the detective work ok. [...]

So please post the number to the "police report" that you filed. I would like to see it state "Uh, I am Jim Miller the president of I.S.A. and
my business partner Ray Nize just disappeared with thousands of shares of stock in my company and I cannot locate him anywhere on the planet earth and my company has been frozen from trading on the Pink Sheets and S.E.C. because of decisions Ray and I made but I would like to file a "missing computer" case at this time. Everything else can wait." Oh and I was "banned" from the office on May 7, 2008 but you called me asking me for investors and more money for I.S.A. You even state that Ray Nize robbed you on my voice mail and now you are posting that I robbed you on www.ripoffreport.com..."

Someone might want to ask Wenzel / Nize (?) about his visit to the Hollywood stars;

"...to confirm this was an event that Jim Miller took part in the year before Ray and I attended.  In the meantime here are images of the investors of I.S.A.’s money hard at work. I didn’t know this until afterward that the money for this event and for our tickets was paid for by the stock holders. Yeah, that’s right $1000.00 per person to get in... "

Misc:

But when that's all said and done; even assuming it's all hearsay and Ray Nize (?) moved to berid of the situation (and everything he did was legit), and assuming this is actually Rob Wenzel... would it not behoove him to address it now that it's out? *shrugs*

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Marko:
In truth SD wasn't just linked, he was cited and commented on.

...by the guy who is the focus of this thread.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Mon, Apr 15 2013 10:05 PM

True but the reason to congratulate SD was not that he had been shown love by Raymond Sabath, but that his text had gotten exposure on a very well-visited internet page.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
John James replied on Mon, Apr 15 2013 10:12 PM

True, but Muff's point was not to show that I had gotten exposure on a very well-visited internet page, but that I had been shown love by someone way better than Raymond Sabath.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (24 items) | RSS